Re: [coreboot] coreboot is going to make kcma-d8 obsolete

On 04/06/2018 09:06 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:45 PM Thierry Laurion  wrote:
> > I agree. This is wrong.
> > Kgpe-d16 and alike are the last resorts for x86 blob free hardware.
> >
> > This NEEDS to be kept maintained and upstreamed.
>
> I like the board too. I have one. I have no time to keep it going. I have
> not even turned it on in months.
>
> Now that I think about it, my board has an EM100. I can try to automate the
> mess if I can remember where the directions are. I also need to work out
> remote reset :-) -- any hints on what to buy to make that go?
>
> Realistically, though, if you want blob free, I think you need power9 or
> riscv.

Of course, but the D16/D8 are fine for legacy x86 applications that some
people need to run and they are both blob free, the last x86 boards that
are.
> I've written x86 off for blob free. I'm sad about that, given where
> we were in 2000 and where we are today, but there's not much to be done for
> it. AMD and Intel just don't see this as a priority :-(

Yeah x86 is dead freedomwise but that doesn't mean boards that people
know are functional should be removed from coreboot just because.

I highly doubt these policies happen in a vacuum.

coreboot is going to make kcma-d8 obsolete

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 07.04.2018 14:37, [e-mail] wrote:
> Yeah x86 is dead freedomwise but that doesn't mean boards that people
> know are functional should be removed from coreboot just because.

If people knew that those boards are functional, they would not get
removed from git master.

Sorry, lots of testimonies from people running ancient versions of
coreboot on any given board does by definition not constitute knowledge
about the functionality of current git master on that board.

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

coreboot is going to make kcma-d8 obsolete

[Patrick Georgi]

[e-mail]  schrieb am Sa., 7. Apr. 2018, 14:39:
> that doesn't mean boards that people
> know are functional should be removed from coreboot just because.
>
> I highly doubt these policies happen in a vacuum.

That particular policy was created because we consider it worse to pretend
that we support boards on master that are untested for a long time just to
inflate numbers and to keep personal pet projects around long after their
due date.

The simple solution is to show every now and then that the board still
boots with master (and fix up issues). Which is exactly what we ask for.

Patrick